Polling by the Pew Research Center last year came to similar conclusions: 50 percent of millennials, between the ages of 18 and 36, said gun laws in the U.S. should be more strict. That share was almost identical among the general public, according to Kim Parker, director of social trends research at Pew.

Pew did find significant differences between millennials and older generations on two gun control proposals — banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The results showed that a greater share of millennials — both Republicans and Democrats — are more conservative when it comes to those bans compared with Generation Xers, baby boomers and members of the silent generation.

A mentally disturbed individual poses a far greater threat than an inanimate object. What is the common correlation between these shootings in gun-free safe zones besides the fact that a gun was the tool employed- mental instability. From what I’ve witnessed of the Tumblr “gun control debate outrage” people have a general lack of understanding of early American history hints why they are so quick to dismiss the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They care less about the overall principle behind the law and would rather abolish it all together due to its “archaic nature.” Why stop at just the second amendment though? By employing this logic surely ending the first amendment will stop all speech and expression deemed to be harmful will it not? Furthermore I also question those that demand for more laws, as if more laws ever solved any problems.